AP Muddies Waters on New Poll

Is the Associated Press trying to muddy the campaign waters to benefit Senator Hillary Clinton? The AP just reported on a new poll, titling their story Intensity Differs for Clinton, Giuliani.

The AP begins their story by stating,

Rudy Giuliani's support is broad. Hillary Rodham Clinton's is intense. Among voters of all parties with an opinion, Clinton is viewed favorably by 55 percent, the lowest of all major candidates, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Thursday.

So instead of headlining about intensity, why didn't the AP headline the real story- that wile Senator Clinton has intense support among her faithful, she does not have broad support like that enjoyed by the former New York mayor. The AP goes on to try to build up Clinton's support, stating,

Yet the New York senator is viewed favorably by 88 percent of her fellow Democrats, including 38 percent with a very favorable opinion of her - the highest rating of that intensity for any leading candidate. Such support is good news for her effort to win her party's nomination.

I would agree that her fervent followers in the ranks of the Democratic Party make it virtually impossible for her to lose the nomination, but her chances in a general election are much less favorable. Her negatives, as has been reported on before, are much higher than any of her potential competitors, and a general campaign does not usually lower those negatives- it sends them higher.

But all of this is known already. And in any event, polls this far in advance of a general election are essentially meningless, as many Americans have not even begun paying attention to the various races. Only after the nominations are set will the general public begin to take an interest. that is when polls become useful. The AP appears to be merely trying to bring down the Republicans, and make Hillary seem much stronger than she is with this "news" story.

Terror Attack Helps Republicans, Says Hillary

In a new low of political promoting, Senator Hillary Clinton says that a new terror attack would help Republicans. The New York senator is reported by the New York Post online edition as saying,

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,"

This brings up two points. Firstly, how low has political campaigning sunk that any candidate for the Presidency would even consider saying something like this as part of a campaign. Whether a terror attack would or would not help a single political party should be irrelevant- all Americans should be working together to prevent a terror attack and to defeat our enemies. Unfortunately, that message apparently hasn't reached most of the Democratic Party.

Secondly, how can any media outlet, especially one from a city that has first-hand experience of being attacked by Islamic terror, treat this statement as being a normal, straightforward campaign sound bite? The Post should be ashamed of itself for not highlighting this statement as the partisan and unpatriotic statement that it is. But the Post can only bring itself to call the statement 'surprising'.

This is yet another indication that where Democrats and especially Hillary are concerned, the national media has only one standard for their comments- help them win at any cost.

Columbia Journalism Review Whines About Drudge

Has the Columbia Journaism Review (CJR) taken umbrage with Matt Drudge's choice of headlines? After Drudge posted the "Obama Wife Slams Hillary" headline across his site, CJR ran an article complaining Drudge Barks, TV News Bites.

It seems the CJR is upset that Drudge's headline sparked a media feeding frenzy in which the major news sources all picked up both on the original story in the Chicago Sun-Times and on the interpretation that Michelle Obama's remark constituted an attack on Senator Hillary Clinton. Now for anyone who read the original story, there seems little doubt that Mrs. Obama's remark really was a thinly-disguised dig at Hillary. The Sun-Times wrote,

At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part "to model what it means to have family values," adding "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

Taken in context, it would seem to be a pretty fair interpretation that Mrs. Obama was indeed making a direct comparison betwewen her own travels with her candidate husband, and Hillary's very noticeable distance from her own philandering spouse, former President Bill Clinton. Not to the CJR, however.

The CJR article proceeded to spend the majority of its space trying to refute the idea that Mrs. Obama was talking about Senator Clinton. The main thrust of its article seems to be that Drudge induced the media into a needless spate of stories that carried no real value, and existed only to titllate the reading public.

Of course, when the media was obsessing over former Seantor Fred Thompson's lovely (and younger) wife Jeri, there was no lack of stories musing about "trophy wives" and their effect on the American public. Never mind that Jeri Thompson is far from being a "trophy wife". And when Rudy Guilani's family was dragged into view last week, I do not recall the CJR complining about those stories, though they have even less journalistic vaslue than does this one. It seems that the CJR only complains about journalitic value when it is Democrats who are being displayed in a negative light.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Now Available on NewsBusters

I have recently been invited to cross-post on NewsBusters.org! This is a great honor, so in future any media-related posts can be found on NewsBusters.org. I will continue to post on non-media-bias issues here at StoneHeads.

Welcome to any new readers who may have found me due to my inclusion at NewsBusters. Comments are welcome as always, though I do request that any commenters follow common courtesy. Profanity, trolling and personal attacks are all unacceptable.

NY Times's New Line on Iraq

Now that the military surge led by General Petraeus is clearly succeeding in lowering the violence level in Iraq, the liberal media cheerleaders for defeat are scrambling for a new strategy to convince Americans that Iraq is a disaster. But what line will they choose?

The New York Times has apparently decided that since success on the military end of things is now fairly evident, that it is time to begin chipping away at the poilitcal side. To this end, they have once again utilized their favorite tool, the anonymous source, to try to destroy Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The Times story, posted on the front page of their web site, is entitled Report Cites Grave Concerns on Iraq's Government. Once a reader gets past the scare-mongering headline, the report continues to cast doubt on the Iraqi government in every way it can, stating,

The administration is planning to make public today parts of a sober new report by American intelligence agencies expressing deep doubts that the government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, can overcome sectarian differences. Government officials who have seen the report say it gives a bleak outlook on the chances Mr. Maliki can meet milestones intended to promote unity in Iraq.

Naturally, the Times used an anonymous official to reinforce their position. "“The report says that there’s been little political progress to date, and it’s very gloomy on the chances for political progress in the future,” said one Congressional official with knowledge of its contents."

It is no surprise that the Times uses "an anonymous Congressional offiical". During the course of their campaign for defeat in Iraq and the destruction of President Bush's Adminstration, the Times has rarely dared to actually quote from true named experts, and many of the anonymous experts they have used in the past, such as Michael Scheuer, have been easily discredited once their real names and positions became known. Whereas, by using an "anonymous" expert, the actual espertise fo thier chosen commentator is difficult to discern.

It appears that the Times has decided that since military success is virtually impossible to deny, that it is time to attack the civilian authorities, despite the fact that they too have made great strides since the beginning of the campaign. al-Maliki has managed to reach out to Sunnis and hang on to his own Shi'ite support as well, in the process marginalizing the Moqti al-Sadr forces as well. In the Times's view, any American defeat that hurts the Administration is apparently better than a victory that actually strengthens America.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Selena's Revisions

Isn't it interesting how many media outlets seem to employ two different sets of standards regarding athletes accused of criminal behavior? Selena Roberts wrote passionately (if incorrectly) regarding the three falsely accused Duke lacrosse players in the once-august pages of the New York Times. One of her main themes was that the lacrosse players were engaging in a wall of silence designed to protect the guilty. She condemned this behavior in very strong terms, even using the illustration of a gang member wearing a "Stop Snitching" T-shirt on her first article, published on March 31, 2006. In this she portrayed them as equally despicable and in fact equivalent to those gang members who discourage snitching to the authorities with threats of physical violence.

So, how did Ms. Roberts react to the news that Michael Vick's co-defendants had snitched on him, revealing his leadership and his financial bankrolling of the dog-fighting gang? Surely she was happy that they had not engaged in the behavior she had previously ascribed (falsely) to the Duke lacrosse team?

Not exactly. It turns out that Ms. Roberts only approves of snitching in cases where the defendants are white and innocent of the crimes they are accused of. If the defendant is black and guilty, then apparently it is not acceptable to snitch on the ring-leader. As KC Johnson wites of Roberts' column,

In her column for today’s Times, however, Roberts takes a far different view of “snitches.” Her commentary deals with the Michael Vick case, and the parade of friends or relatives of the quarterback cooperating with the government—or, in Roberts’ parlance, “snitching.”

How does Roberts describe their behavior?

Vick’s cousin was “the first to fail” him. Then a friend with whom he had a falling out, Tony Taylor, was “the first to flip” on him. And finally, another old friend, Quanis Phillips, who pled guilty to dog-fighting charges on Friday, was “the latest to betray” Vick. [emphasis added in each sentence]

Fail him? Flip on him? Betray him? What happened to Selena Roberts, the arch-crusader for justice, who argued that friends and teammates needed to “come forward to reveal an eyewitness account,” and smash the culture in which “any whisper of a detail [is] akin to snitching?”

Last spring, Roberts described the lacrosse team as “a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings.” How does she describe Vick? As a person of “disarming charm” who “employed friends and housed pals.” He has, she laments, been “abandoned, left to contemplate a plea deal that could imprison him and ruin his N.F.L. career.”

The incompetence and flat falsehoods employed by many of the members of the Press in dealing with these two cases is equalled only by their hypocrisy. Hat tip to Durham-in-Wonderland.

NAACP Supports Criminals

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NACCP) was one of the most outspoken opponents of the three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape by a Durham prostitute-cum-stripper, Crystal Gayle Mangum. They called for harsh penalties and openly wanted the three college boys to spend time in prison for something that they did not do. This is still the official stand of the NAACP, depsite the three having been declared entirely innocent by the North Carolina state Attorney General.

However, it is apparently different when the accused is a multi-million dollar black quarterback. The NACCP today released an announcement calling for Michael Vick's reinstatement in the NFL, preferably with the Atlanta Falcons, after he does his prison time in the dog-fighting case.

"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," said R.L. White, president of the NAACP's Atlanta chapter. "We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."

I see. So a millionaire black athlete who is convicted of criminal behavior should getg multiple chances to redeem himself and society should not judge him as a result of his own actions, freely taken. But white college boys from Duke University should not only not get any such second chances, they should be imprisoned as a result of false charges, a police department that is clearly out of control and a rogue prosecutor?

I think the NAACP has some explaining to do. Unless of course, it really is all about race.

UPDATE: The link that quotes the NAACP's memorandum on the falsely accused Duke athletes is courtesy of Professor K.C. Johnson's incredible Durham-in-Wonderland blog. For a complete picture of the entire Duke Rape Hoax, Professor Johnson, along with fellow stalwarts John in Carolina and Lie Stoppers have been unceasing in their pursuit of the truth.

AP Slants Again

The Associated Press is following their long-standing habit of presenting any news that the White House or its components are claiming executive privilege by presenting it as "obstruction". In an article posted on the Yahoo News site today, Pete Yost intially plays it straight by saying that the Justice Department says the White House Office of Administration is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

However, Yost then proceeds to quote from no one who might be able to support the Justice Department's claims. Instead, he quotes the Administration spokespeople, then immediately focuses on groups that are hostile to the Administration, such as the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the National Security archive. Both of these groups are offered free space to attack the Administration, though no countering information is presented. Both of these groups are clamoring for unfettered release of information that has not been tied to any criminal issues, such as the federal prosecutors' firing, but were strangely silent when it was the Clinton White House claiming executive privilege. I don't recall them pressing for more information regarding Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's bribery issues either, though Jefferson has been caught literally red-handed.

For myself, I do not know whether the Justice Department's claims are meritorious or not. However, for the AP to publish a piece offering only one side of the story is shameless and only provides more evidence that the AP is not providing journalism, but propaganda.

Fluff of the Day

I have seen some ridiculous things on the Internet. But stiletto high-heel racing definitely takes the cake. I have to agree with Manolo, who says,

"It is still madness!"

Yes it is. But fun to watch.

Hat tip to little green footballs.

NY Times scare stories on US Healthcare

It is strange how studies by groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) are trumpeted by news organs like the New York Times when said findings advance the preferred views of the news organ itself. It is even stranger when studies that do not represent the preferred beliefs of news organs, or corrections that make a moockery of a story (such as Duff Wilson's fantasy-laden stories about the Duke Rape Hoax) are hidden on the back page, or not published at all.

A case in point is the recent study by the WHO that finds US healthcare is only the 37th best in the world. Naturally, the Times put these results on the front page, without bothering to invetigate how the WHO reached them. This is relevant because as John Stossel points ou in his excellent rebuttal of the WHO study on TownHall.com, the study is fatally flawed in deteremining what amounts to "good" healthcare as opposed to "bad" healthcare.

According to Stossel, the WHO put high emphasis on life expectancy. Since the US has a much higher murder rate and auto-accident death rqate than virtually any other advanced country, this has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of healthcare one receives, it would perhaps have been nice if the Times had mentioned this. It did not. In addition, the WHO graded countries' healthcare system according to how socialist they were. As Stossel writes, "The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The excellence of care in this country thus was downgraded because not everyone has totally free access to it! This little point also did not make it into the Times' story, though it did make a point that our system is "unfair".

American healthcare certasinly does need fixing. But it would be nice if the media would cease their scare tactics in pursuit of a system like Cuba or Canada. Having lived in a country (Japan) that does have a central healthcare system, I am well aware that Japanese pay more for their system than I do for mine- even when I paid for my own. I also have a wife who is a registered nurse, and have had to pay some calls to doctors for treatment, so I have seen our system up close and personal. In the end, our system is not perfect, but it contains more positives than almost any other I have experienced. Too bad the Times can't focus on some of those positives, instead of trying to scare Americans into adopting a system that consistently does worse.

On Media Seriousness...

The US media is justifiably reviled for its political pandering, its readily apparent bias and its refusal to actually report on news that might (gasp) make the sitting President look better than the media wants him to. However, at least the US media has not completely gone into fairyland, unlike its Japanese counterpart.

When American pledge drives or other charity auctions occur, they are normally filled with things that evoke a wide variety of feelings- baseballs from a 700th home run, valuabnle artifacts and so on. However, the Japanese network Paradise TV has a slightly different focus- on pornography. And of cours the Japanese journalistic world is only to happy to cover said fundraiser- in detail.

The Shukan Taishu (週間大衆) reports that Paradise is planning to host a wall-to-wall porn giveaway for its annual fundraiser, including,

Among the features of the telethon will be "Oppai Bokin (Tit Collection)," where contributors to the charity fund are permitted to knead the breasts of an adult movie actress; and the Tekoki Jinja (Hand Job Shrine), where a cash handout will be returned with a hand out of an entirely different kind.

At least our media has not yet descended to the depths that necessitate reporting on this kind of thing, despite their incomprehensible interest in the affairs of nobodies such as Paris Hilton and other "celebrities" of that nature.

Hot (Pants) in Japan

Japanese girls have been noted in recent times of falling for all kinds of fashion fads. Some of these included the body-conscious (ボディコン) girls of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the "T-back" craze of the mid-1990s and the '70s retread craze of the early 2000s. It appears that Japanese girls now love to wear hot pants, or very short shorts. And this has apparently irritated the fashion police in Japan.

As reported by the Sunday Mainichi newspaper (毎日新聞), fashion critic Ichida Hiromi is unhappy with this turn of events. Ichida complained to the Sunday Mainichi that,

Ichida says Japanese aren't suited for skimpy hot pants.
"If Japanese women were built like their Western counterparts, it wouldn't be so bad, but hot pants just don't suit Japanese," she says. "It's the same as ultra-mini skirts. They were first brought here from Europe and Japanese adopted the fashion, but it's not so easy to adopt body shapes. I really want the women decked out in revealing clothes to take an objective look at their bodies. It's going to take another three or four generations before Japanese have similar proportions to Westerners. It's still premature for Japanese to go around talking about beautiful legs," Ichida tells Sunday Mainichi. "I can understand if the women were wearing hot pants over a swimsuit when they went to the beach, or something. In fact, in those cases, they're quite cute. But these girls are wearing the short shorts everywhere. And I can't stand it!"

I suspect that Ichida may be jealous of the women who can wear such attire, or perhaps she genuinely yearns for the days of the kimono. While I confess to a secret appreciation for a lovely Japanese girl properly dressed in the traditional kimono (I consider kimono one of the most lovely forms of clothing ever developed), I also appreciate the difficulty most modern Japanese women have in actually wearing said attire. Not only is kimono exceedingly difficult to wear, it is an increasingly rare Japanese woman who actually knows how to put one on, and often requires the assistance of others to get properly worn. I can remember my own wife, on our wedding, required her mother's assistance in order to get her kimono properly draped and tied.

Ultimately however, Ichida's complaints ring false. If the Japanese women are not suited for hot pants, then their friendswill surely let them know. In the meantime, I am certain that the male population is enjoying the fad while it lasts. And the media, as always, is milking it for all it is worth. After all, an excuse to run pictures of gorgeous women in skimpy clothing justifies any minimal "journalism" such as this piece by the Sunday Mainichi.

Electoral Change in California

Ed Morrissey has been following the Democrats' attempt to sabotage the Electoral College over on Heading Right. As he has noted, Democrats were unhappy that George W. Bush won the 2000 election depite not winning the overall national popular vote. They have proposed several semi-legal solutions to this, including having states agree to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of assigning the electoral votes to the winner of the state's popular vote as has been traditional.

However, Democrats nationwide are not too pleased about California's plan to address the situation. As reported by Captain Ed, California voters support a plan to split the electoral vote between the winners of the various counties. Two electoral votes would be given to the winner fo the state's popular vote, but the remaining 53 would go to the winners of the state's fifty-three counties. And a plurality of Californians are in support of this idea, including half of all Democrats.

This seems to me a good idea both for fairness and for the effect it would have on the two political parties. Since California is dominated by the far-left enclaves of San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles area, the more-conservative Central Valley is often forgotten, and Repoublicans rarely spend much time or effort in the state, knowing that the liberal blocs in the cities guarantee Democratic wins in the state. If this change were to take effeect, then Republicans would need to spend time in california, benefitting both Californians and ultimately, maybe the Republican Party as well. Even Democrats might be benefitted by some competition, as they currently own California in a one-party system.

Captain Ed also pointed out that California has often been a "harbinger of political movements" and I agree with him that this change has nothing but positives for both parties. Instead of a winner-take-all result, now both parties, and even some third parties have reason to compete. The downside is that it does encourage small parties like the Greens to muddy the waters, and the last thing we need is an arrangement like much of Europe, where no single party can gain enough seats to govern., Fortunately, the fact that our Head of State is NOT the Head of the Winning Party in Congress helps us to be somewhat immune to that sort of madness.

Of course, this also means that if the ballot proposal passes, a Democratic nominee for President would face a much more difficult time of winning the national election if California's fifty-five electoral votees were not gauranteed to go to the Democrat. Hillary has problems now, and without all of California's electoral votes, I don't think she stands any chance of winning at all. But the best effect would be to allow the voters to choose- not some party operatives working in the back-room darkness.

More Liberal Obfuscation

The liberal media is at it again. The meme of "liberals are smarter than conservatives" has been a constant for some time, especially since the election of George W. Bush, whom liberals like to portray as an idiot. Now the Associated Press has decided to try this one more time, running a story that claims liberals read more than conservatives because they are "want the hole picture".

The story quotes the president of the American Association of Publishers on the topic, and her words are unkind at best and insulting at worst to conservatives.

The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,'" Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Of course, Schroeder's comments should be taken with a large grain of salt- she used to be, as even the AP has to admit, "one of Congress' most liberal members" during her time as a democratic Representative from Colorado. The White House was quick to fire off an amused response, saying that Schroeder confused "quantity with quality". And the AP also admits that Karl Rove is known as a prodigious reader.

As a voracious reader myself, I have to laugh a the entire "news story". Liberals may indeed read more than conservatives. However, just because one person reads more bulk than another carries absolutely no significance as to intelligence, wisdom or any other meaningful markers of personality. I have read Kipling, Shakespeare, the Bible, a great deal of literary fiction, and a fair amount of science fiction from the Golden Age. However, the only books I have read in the past year are the Harry Potter books and a few old favorites by Douglas Reeman, CS Forester, Dick Francis and Ngaio Marsh. Although I have re-read some of the classics, such as Mahan's Influence of Sea Power Upon History and Plato's Republic (in translation- my Greek is nonexistent).

My wife on the other hand has confined her reading to several Japanese novels by Miyabe Miyuki (宮部みゆき). Does this mean she is less intelligent? Of course not. The volume of one's reading is immaterial to one's intelligence.

One can also make the argument that conservatives read less because thy have actual jobs and families to occupy their attention, while liberals tend to be children of privilege (meaning no nine-to-five job to keep them busy) and less inclined to have children (which may come back to haunt them one day at the ballot box).

However, in the main this is merely more evidence that the Left has become the party of elitism and privilege, while the conservatives (should be) the party of normal people. If only the black vote could figure this out, Democrats might actually have to enunciate a real policy as opposed to tired old bromides like this one.

Marine Music & Nuclear Submarines

This is one in a series of posts on the history of the United States Navy.

On this day in 1800, the United States Marine Band gave its first concert in Washington, District of Columbia. This was the first in a long and continuing tradition of great musicians providing music to the public, including such luminaries as John Philip Sousa, who led the Marine Band from 1880 - 1892. This tradition continues today, as "The President's Own" band continues to provide superb music for all State occasions and many public concerts.

And also on this day in history in 1951, the first contract for a nuclear-powered submarine was awarded to the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. This award paved the way for the Navy to enter the nuclear era with the launch of the U.S.S. Nautilus (SSN-571) in 1954. Today, Nautilus, named for the famed submarine in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea in which he predicted nuclear power among other things, can be found at Groton, Connecticut, near the huge submarine base of New London, Connecticut.

Model Health Care?

I am not a supporter of government-run health care. Nor am I a proponent of universal health care, a la the Hillary Clinton model or any other socialist scheme. That being said, however, there is no question that the United States health care model could use some improvement. I would fight against adopting the Canadian (or God forbid, the Cuban) model that Hillary and other rich hypocrites like Michael Moore want to foist upon us. But there may be a viable alternative or two out there.

With that in mind, former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, who is currently Chairman of the Romney for President Domestic Policy Task Force, has written an article praising Romney's reform of the Massachusetts health-care industry. While the source must be considered, if Talent's article is correct, then this may be one possibility for reforming the national health=-care system as well. But I still have a few concerns:

First, we need to ensure that illegal aliens cannot access any new national health-care system. If they need medical care, they need to pay up-front for it; they should not be allowed any of its benefits otherwise.

Second, we need to ensure that government gets its nose out of healthcare. The last thing we need is more bureaucracy involved in our health-care system. Deregulation is essential if any real reform is to succeed. The key, as Talent says in describing Romney's reforms,

Finally, Governor Romney recognized that competition is the key to the success of any market – so doing what no one had ever done before, he created a new market where consumers can go to pick the health care plan that suits them best.

Competition, not over-regulation, is the key to success. If everyone is concentrating on producing the best product for the least amount of money, and the consumer is able to choose, then many of the current issues will go away in my opinion.

Finally we need to get lawyers out of the equation. too many doctors and medical institutions are so fearful of these ambulance-chasers that they will do unnecessary tests, driving up sots, so as to avoid deadly lawsuits. We need to cap malpractice awards and also to eliminate the ability of people who have actually never suffered to gain from class-action lawsuits. Get lawyers out of healthcare and I think we will find that healthcare becomes affordable again. Maybe if doctors refused care to lawyers that might be a start?

Talent's article does not provide enough information to make a truly informed opinion on the success or failure of Romney's reforms in Massachusetts. But is does provide a possible path for national reform, if taken judiciously. Read the whole thing.

Bully Russia Tries Again

Russia is no fan of the proposed U.S. missile defense system. This is for very good reason. If the U.S. successfully implements its missile-defense system, then Russia's major weapons are essentially useless against the United States. And Russian influence will become even less than it is at present.

Therefore, it is no surprise that Russia is trying to bully her neighbors into refusing to host pieces of the missile defense system. One of those neighbors is the Czech Republic, which has some experience with being betrayed by the West and dominated by Russia. Today, Russia's military Chief of Staff added to the pressure, incidentally taking sides in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election in the United States as well. And surprise, surprise, he subtlely hinted that Russia would prefer to see a Democrat in the WHite House.

We say it will be a big mistake by the Czech government to put this radar site on Czech territory," said Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian military chief of staff, after meeting the Czech deputy defense minister, Martin Bartak.

He said the Czech Republic should hold off making a decision until after the U.S. presidential election, scheduled to take place in late 2008. Incumbent George W. Bush will not be running.

"A decision will be made by the Czech side only after the evaluation of all conditions, technical and otherwise," said Baluyevsky.

"I and my Russian colleagues simply ask that that process continue through to October-November of 2008, and I think you can all guess why."

Asked by a reporter to clarify, he said: "I do not exclude that a new administration in the United States will re-evaluate the current administration's decisions on missile defense."

This should provide additional evidence, if any were necessary, that Democrats are widely seen as being surrender-happy, and that most nations correctly understand that Democrats have neither an understanding of defense nor do they have the intestinal fortitude to actually pursue a strong defense. They would rather turn troops into policemen and base American defense on vague ideals of "peace".

And it presents even more evidence that Russia will stop at nothing to return to its formerly prominent position, possibly including the re-occupation of those Eastern European countries that were for so long under its iron fist.

About that Democratic Congress...

You probably won't see many reports of this in the mainstream media, but it appears that despite the media shilling for Democrats, the Democratic-controlled Congress is not particularly popular with the American public. According to a new Gallup poll, Congress' approval rating has matched a historic low- only 18 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing.

In contrast, President Bush's approval ratings are holding steady in the low 30 percent range. The same Gallup poll reports that Bush has an approval rating of 32 percent. While Bush's low approval rating can be traced to the unceasingly negative coverage of the Iraq campaign as well as his stumbles on immigration and other policies that upset his core constituency, Congress does not have that excuse.

Democrats took Congress, as Gallup mentions, on voter disgust with Republican profligacy and scandals. But Pelosi and Company have proven even more corrupt and than the Republicans they replaced. Perhaps if Congress would concentrate more on the job they are supposed to be doing- such as cleaning up the pork-laden members of the new Democratic majority- and less on trying to manufacture scandals that do not exist, they might be able to hang on to their majority in the next elections. At this rate however, Nancy Pelosi's reign as Madame Speaker may be short.

Creeping Sharia

I cannot imagine any scenario where a "Christian-themed" private school would be allowed to open without furious outcry from most of the media and many Democratic politicians. the ACLU would be in the forefront of the fight, filing legal challenges to keep it from recieving any kind of public funding whatsoever. And virtually every news outlet in the country would be editorializing that American was becoming a thoecracy.

Yet these same organizations apparently have no problem with an Islamic-themed public school opening in Brooklyn. In fact, according to the New York Department of Education,

Khalil Gibran International Academy is a new public middle school that will teach Arabic language and culture while adhering to all state academic and legal standards. This is a non-religious school and will be open to all New York City students. The school will be housed in the Sarah. J. Hale building at 345 Dean Street in Brooklyn and will enroll 60 6th graders in September.

A school that will "teach Arabic language and culture"? And it is being sponsored by the New York Department of Eduction? If the separation of church and state means anything to the usually-fierce opponents of religion, then this school should not be allowed to open. Unless of course the New York Department of Education is prepared to open similar schools teaching "Hindi culture and language", "Jewish culture and language" and maybe even "Christian culture". But I suspect that there will be no such schools opened by the New York Department of Education. For some reason Islam, the religion that openly calls for a combined church/state structure is OK but all other religions, which have a long-established separation between the political and the religious, are not.

One can only wonder when the mavens of "diversity" will finally realize that the very forces they are so closely allied with- the forces of radical Islam- are those that they ought be most fearful of, for "diversity" is one of Islam's first targets anywhere they achieve a majority rule.

Deeds, Not Words

Liberals love to talk. They are the masters of words. Conservatives as a rule are not great talkers. They prefer deeds. This has been evident for some time.

Today, Eric at the Tygrrrr Express has posted a wonderful article about liberals' words versus conversatives' actions. While I find it difficult to improve on Eric's essay, I would like to point out the following:

Liberals like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter sat down with their opponents and talked. Once in a while, they are fortunate enough that their guests have plans that they can take credit for. This happened to Carter when he hosted Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin. They signed a treaty. Carter provided a location.

Conservatives on the other hand, are not usually great talkers, with Ronald Rreagan begin the rare exception. Conservatives prefer to act, not talk. When Kim Il Sung, backed by Red china, invaded South Korea in 1952, Harry Truman did not talk- he acted. the result is a free South Korea. When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, he faced a deadly enemy in the Soviet Union. He realized that they could not possibly compete with us, and we proceeded to win the Cold War. tTe result was a free Eastern Europe and an end to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, George H.W. Bush acted- he sent the United States military to dislodge Hussein. The result was a free Kuwait. When George W. Bush saw that Iraq was a problem in the global war on radical Islam we are currently fighting, he also acted before the problem could get worse- he sent in the United States military. The result, if the Democrats and the Left fail to convince us of defeat, will ultimately be a free Iraq.

Liberals' plans for a better world seem to involve lots of Big Government and the lessening of actual choices for ordinary people like most of us- children of privilege like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards somehow seem to expect that their ideal State will leave their massive wealth somehow intact.

Conservatives' plans for a better country usually involve getting government out of people's pockets and allowing more personal choice. While many liberals are undoubtedly well-meaning people, they lack an understanding that we live in an imperfect world and the only way to ensure our own survival is to be strong enough to fight and win when our lifestyle and our culture are attacked. Talking to a Stalin, a Hitler and a Mao Tse-tung (or a Saddam Hussein, for that matter) never works unless the dictator is frightened enough to do as you ask. Only strength can dissuade would-be conquerors. Ask the men and women of Constantinople- their weakness and that of their allies allowed Islam to conquer one of the oldest Christian cities in the world, and turn the greatest church in Christiandom into a mosque.

Liberals keep talking, but it is conservatives who guarantee them the freedom to do so. Keep that in mind the next time a liberal starts talking about how we can make the world a better place.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.